UK Offence Report

Other offences connected with immobilisation

regulation 9(1) of The Vehicle Excise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1996

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

1 Where these Regulations would apply in relation to

a vehicle but for the provisions of regulation 7(1) and (2)(a) and the vehicle was not, at the time it was stationary, being used —

a in accordance with regulations under section

21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 or with regulations under section

14 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, and

b in circumstances falling within section 117(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or Article 174A(2)(b) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (use where

a disabled person’s concession would be available), the person in charge of the vehicle at that time is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

3 on the standard scale.

Text as made, from legislation.gov.uk. © Crown copyright, reused under the Open Government Licence v3.0. This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.

Who it binds, and what has to be proved

Binds
a disabled person
Conduct
breaching the provision
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened. This is a strict liability offence as drafted: the provision uses no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, so there is no need to show that a disabled person meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

Intention, knowledge and carelessness are irrelevant to guilt. They may still matter a great deal to sentence.

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

What would breach regulation 9(1)?

These are illustrations, not law. They are generated from the provision’s own words to show the shape of the offence. Whether any particular conduct is caught depends on the full text, on any amendment since, and on the facts.

  1. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Vehicle Excise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1996.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£1,000
Standard scale
Level 3
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined
Maximum prison (on indictment)
2 years

Sentencing

Offences of this kind are usually sentenced under the guidelines below. This is a mapping by subject, not a finding about this provision, and the links go to a search of the Sentencing Council’s own site.

Prosecution figures

No published per-offence figure was found for this provision, and it could not be matched to a Ministry of Justice offence code. Offences created by statutory instrument very largely do not have one. Absence of a figure is not evidence that the offence is unused.

Status and lifecycle

Current status
Revoked
Revoked by
The Vehicle Excise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1997
Revoked on
30 November 1997
Made
20 January 1996
In force from
20 February 1996
Extent
Not stated

How this was established: the instrument was revoked by a later instrument found in this corpus.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations provide for the immobilisation of unlicensed mechanically propelled vehicles found stationary on public roads in the designated clamping areas referred to in Schedule 2. Regulation 5 enables a person authorised by the Secretary of State to fix an immobilisation device to such a vehicle. Regulation 6 states the conditions to be fulfilled (including the payment of prescribed charges specified in Schedule 1) for the release of a vehicle from an immobilisation device and regulation 7 sets out the exemptions from immobilisation. Offences in connection with immobilisation (including unlawful interference with an immobilisation device and falsely claiming exemption to secure the release of a vehicle) are created by regulations 8 and 9. Part III (regulations 10 to 15) provides for the removal and disposal of vehicles immobilised under the Regulations, for the retention of a removed vehicle until prescribed charges are paid and for the conditions under which a removed vehicle can be recovered. It is made an offence to obtain possession of a removed vehicle by falsely claiming that it is exempt from vehicle excise duty. When a vehicle has been disposed of, the owner can claim a sum equal to the proceeds of sale after deduction of prescribed charges. Regulation 16 provides for the issue of a voucher on the making of a “surety payment” under regulation 6 or 13, where a vehicle is released after immobilisation or removal but a licence for the vehicle is not produced, and for obtaining a refund of the surety payment when the vehicle is licenced. Regulation 17 creates offences relating to false declarations in connection with obtaining vouchers or refunds and to the forgery, or fraudulent alteration or use, of vouchers. Provision is made by regulation 18 for disputes about charges paid to secure the release of a vehicle from an immobilisation device, or to secure possession of it after its removal, to be referred to a person authorised by the Secretary of State. An appeal against the determination of the authorised person can be made to a magistrates' court.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Other offences in the same instrument

How this was identified as an offence

Everything above rests on the judgement that this provision creates a criminal offence, rather than mentioning one. That judgement is made by rule, from the words of the provision, and this is the rule that made it — with a confidence of 0.92.

Basis
the provision says a person is “guilty of an offence”
Confidence
0.92 of 1.00

A provision that states a penalty for an offence created elsewhere can read very like one that creates an offence, and the rules can mistake the one for the other. If the text quoted above sets a penalty for something made an offence by another provision, treat the classification on this page with that in mind, and read the instrument.

Check the source